.com/apache/incubator-hugegraph-commons/tree/1.2.0
(33fa9ed)
Release notes:
- https://hugegraph.apache.org/docs/changelog/hugegraph-1.2.0-release-notes/
Keys to verify the Release Candidate:
- https://downloads.apache.org/incubator/hugegraph/KEYS
The release GPG user ID: simon (m...@apache.org)
The
Thanks for reviewing and voting for our release candidate.
We will proceed with publishing the approved artifacts and sending out the
announcement soon.
Simon Cheung
On behalf of Apache HugeGraph(Incubating) community
ways host the source code and associated
development framework (newsgroups, email lists, etc) on your own site,
or use the SourceForge site. If you let us know a little more about the
business goals of Daffodil Software we may be able to offer better
advice.
Disclaimer: No responsibility is take
nfortunately, two attributes that are greatly useful when participating
in open-source are Persistence and Patience :-)
I recommend you read the documention at:
http://incubator.apache.org
for more information about how the ASF starts new projects.
To members of the incubator PMC: now would be a good time to speak up if
you disagree with anything I've said!
Regards,
Simon
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ed and that it is necessary to
start again?
* That because Apache is a well-respected player in the Java community
that a project hosted at Apache will be so much better accepted that it
is worth discarding all the Kaffe/Classpath work
SWT or any such
"extension" libraries. Having SWT development hosted as a separate
Apache project is another thing though - I would quite like to see that!
Regards,
Simon
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
proposal seems *so* much work to reimplement stuff already done
under the GPL (unless that code can be relicensed as described above).
I'm curious to know what the benefit of all that work is..
Regards,
Simon
On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 22:34 -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Simon,
>
>
orrect forum for that discussion?
Please let me know; I'm subscribed to harmony-dev and am happy to follow
up there if it's a better place.
Regards,
Simon
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 23:10 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Simon Kitching wrote:
>
> > legally isn't it impossible for a GPL'd project and an
> > ASF'd project to *have* "synergies"?
>
> Not at all. Individual authors may contribute their ow
Sorry, the previous email was sent incomplete. I'll try again..
On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 15:45 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 23:10 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Simon Kitching wrote:
> >
> > > legally isn't it impossible for a GPL'
On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 15:52 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote:
> Sorry, the previous email was sent incomplete. I'll try again..
>
> On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 15:45 +1200, Simon Kitching wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 23:10 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > > Simon Kitching
f the
code must apply for a patent license separately).
The "legal issues" section of the beehive status page does not address
patent issues. It would be good to confirm that this situation does not
apply to Beehive.
Sorry i
?
Regards,
Simon
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 16:32 -0700, Kenneth Tam wrote:
> Beehive doesn't currently have any implementations of the WS-*
> standards, including WS-Security -- the intent was to at some point
> look to other Apache projects that were implementing those standards
>
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 03:19 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2005, at 3:51 PM, Simon Kitching wrote:
> > Could someone please provide information on any patents known to apply
> > to this project?
>
> No, damnit. That is not how patents work! If we are notified o
cular discussion does not impact the Beehive project.
See the email of Sat, 16 Jul 2005 on legal-discuss with subject "IBM and
Apache":
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200507.mbox/%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regards,
Simon
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the requested SVN filesystem
Subversion access is working fine for me (both web browsing and
command-line).
Regards,
Simon
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andy Van Den Heuvel wrote:
I'm looking for a Champion to help me setup a proposal.
The project is a pluggable all-round job scheduling application.
Not to be a killjoy but how is it different to Hudson/Jenkins?
S
Can somebody help me?
Thanks for your consideration.
-
+1 to this proposal - I am happy to see that this worked out and
Lucene.Net moves forward!
simon
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Troy Howard wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> Please review our proposal for moving the Lucen
+1 (not binding)
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> On 01/26/2011 11:05 PM, Troy Howard wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Since posting the Lucene.Net Incubator proposal announcement on Jan
>> 12th, we now have three mentors signed up and would like to call a
>> vote to accept Lucene.
community.
--
Vriendelijke groet,
Simon Brouwer.
| http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org |
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Hi Robert, all,
I'd like to mention that OpenOffice.org is to be consistently written as
such, not omitting the .org, because there are various companies around
the world that have preceding rights to the name "Open Office" or similar.
Best regards,
Simon
Op 2-6-2011
Op 2-6-2011 15:30, Greg Stein schreef:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 09:21, Simon Brouwer wrote:
Op 2-6-2011 15:04, Greg Stein schreef:
...
If you would like to contribute here (possibly instead of, or in
addition, to your work at TDF), then yes! Please add yourself into the
proposal on the wiki.
I
Hi Jim,
Op 2-6-2011 16:42, Jim Jagielski schreef:
On Jun 2, 2011, at 9:21 AM, Simon Brouwer wrote:
I had already been so bold as to adding myself to the list, expressing my
support to the proposal. I was wondering though. In the OpenOffice.org project,
many community members contribute in
marcation of "new-project" and
"business-as-usual-project" it will be very hard to disentangle the two sets of
needs and fulfil the worthy objective at the start of the proposal, "Both
Oracle and ASF agree that the OpenOffice.org developmen
On 3 Jun 2011, at 02:32, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> Hello Simon,
>
> This is a noble proposal, but there are is an important prerequisite. The
> LibreOffice is currently only accepting contributions licensed under the
> LGPL. The LibreOffice project cannot take those contribut
That is what I was suggesting and which Rob claims he won't need because its
so easy.
{Terse? Mobile!}
On Jun 3, 2011 3:23 PM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 10:05 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 21:26 -0400, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
>>> Final
On 3 Jun 2011, at 17:52, Ian Lynch wrote:
> Hi Florian,
>
>
>> I do see with great concern is the need for a second project to be set-up
>> at Apache or any other entity.
>>
>
> Thing is that this is done, Oracle didn't and won't now give the IP to any
> other foundation. So we are where we
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense
> all
> of the contributions it has received.
As I understand it Noel, TDF accepts contributions under open source
licenses alone and unlike ASF does not require a c
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >
> > Please see Simon Phipps' email earlier today that contained a very
> similar suggestion with some more detail, it would be nice to bring these
> two thre
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> Ahhh... Yes I see something missing from Simons mail here. I assumed that
> the LibreOffice distribution would gradually migrate to using the core
> components proposed here (Apache ODFSuite as Simin called it) and thus
> collaboration on th
s the opportunity? No, just the ASF.
>
> Maybe that is a nit, but of such nits confusion arises.
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> > Cmon Jim, he wrote a lengthy monologue which spelled
> > out his position. As I read it, we could license
> > the O
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Noel J. Bergman
> wrote:
> >
> >> Which is why I raised the question regarding TDF's ability to relicense
> >
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> Just remember, we haven't yet even voted on whether or not to accept
> the podling.
>
> These are decisions the podling should be making.
>
They can only make those decisions if they know they have to make them. I
think it's very material to yo
Your proposed text also does not recognise possibilities for collaboration
to protect the OpenOffice consumer end-user community in the interim while
your project sorts itself out.
S.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Andreas Kuckartz
> wrote:
> > Am 02.06.2011 18:09, schrieb Jukka Zitting:
> >> I wouldn't be too quick to throw away this opportunity to reunite the
> > related communit
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> >
> > If I were voting on this incubator proposal (and of course I know I am
> not),
> > I would want to know that the people proposing it had a grasp of th
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> When I read Jim's email, I took it to mean your tweets[1]. Not your
> emails to this list.
Greg: I am being told by Sam Ruby to not talk about these topics so I will
not respond apart from to acknowledge I am not ignoring you.
S.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:50 PM, wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote on 06/03/2011 02:33:21 PM:
>
> >
> > Your proposed text also does not recognise possibilities for
> collaboration
> > to protect the OpenOffice consumer end-user community in the interim
> while
>
On 3 Jun 2011, at 19:47, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>>
>> More than that, I'd like to see it as an objective to facilitate this
>> collaboration. There's too much talk of just giving up and treati
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:50, wrote:
> > Greg Stein wrote on 06/03/2011 02:27:55 PM:
> >
> >>
> >> Your proposed text does not cover the fact that TDF/LO can lift code
> >> from ASF into their products.
> >>
> >
> > This is true, but would yo
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:40, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >> We already had subversion for some time as the repository for the main
> >> code and it didn't work well for a project this size.
> >
> > Tangential to the responses you've already rece
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> > I am not even thinking of suggesting it, any more than I would dream of
> telling TDF they have to switch to another license. But I do believe there's
> a need
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jun 3, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> >>
> >>&
On 3 Jun 2011, at 21:14, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Posts such as:
>
>
> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3935136/LibreOffice-340-Released-as-OpenOffice-Heads-to-Apache.htm
>
> certainly don't help. It just reinforces a perceived division
> as well as almost forcing the "other
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh wrote:
> >
> > Besides that, I was asking myself why Rob is the only one who could
> > add such a tone to the proposal? If there would be consensus that open
> > and proactive collaboration with other parties i
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:11 PM, dsh
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Besides that, I
I suggest:
"The LibreOffice project is an important partner in the OpenOffice.org
community, with an established potentially highly complementary focus on the
GNU/Linux community as well as on Windows and Mac consumer end-users. We
will seek to build a constructive working and technical relationsh
Given the generally positive response I've edited that text into the wiki.
S.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Excellent. Thanks, Simon!
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 18:16, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > I suggest:
> >
> > "The LibreOffice p
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> (like our invitation to general@incubator) ... Did I miss it?
>
>
Actually I have not seen any invitations from anyone associated with this
proposal on the LibreOffice and Document Foundation lists I subscribe to. I
heard about it through perso
Sorry, hit send too soon.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Now... with that said. Consider a typical person from the ASF who
> might want to do that. Say.. like myself. I don't know what list to
> subscribe to. (name only one!) ... If somebody can say what list that
> ASF peo
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:23, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> >> (like our invitation to general@incubator) ... Did I miss it?
> >
> > Actually I have
t
>
>
> 7) Join Apache and consolidate all development there, under the name ODF
> Suite.
>
> a) Not willing to consider it
>
> b) Willing to consider it
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Simon Phipps
+1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
I can confirm I just saw your "Hello" message go out - awesome!
S.
On 4 Jun 2011, at 01:21, Greg Stein wrote:
> I've now subscribed to libreoffice@, steering-discuss@, and discuss@.
> I dropped a "hello" email to the lists, and am going into lurk mode
> :-)
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 19:45, Den
On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, "Sam Ruby" wrote:
> However I
> will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for
> advancing the cause of free software that the Apache License, Version
> 2.0 is an appropriate choice:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
Have
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:09, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
> wrote:
>> Excuse me for interrupting ...
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:01 AM, wrote:
>>
>>> LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL.
>>
>> I've been reading MPL a few times in this
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>>
> LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
> agree with the license terms under which LibreOffice is made
> available. Until or unless we resolve that issue, I feel that the
> statement above would need to be both qualifie
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, "Sam Ruby" wrote:
>>> However I
>>> will state that in cases where widespread use of the code is vital for
>>> advancing the
On 4 Jun 2011, at 13:18, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:38, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>> On Jun 4, 2011 2:03 AM, "Sam Ruby&qu
On 4 Jun 2011, at 18:18, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:43:50PM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:19, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>> LibreOffice complements anything we do here at Apache to those who
I really can't see that as necessary Jim.
S.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
company Open Office Automatisering since before OpenOffice.org was
announced, see http://www.openoffice.nl/merkenregistratie
Because of this and similar cases we need taking care to not omit the
".org" when indicating the project or the product OpenOffice.org.
--
Vriendelijke
I'm aware that Sun successfully challenged a problematic third party
registration in Brazil just as the acquisition was going through. It may be
worth early investigation in case the registration on Sun's behalf was not
then completed; OOo had serious issues in Brazil over many years because of
it.
On 5 Jun 2011, at 19:15, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:05, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 6/5/2011 10:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>
>>> I posted a similar statement yesterday. Personally, I think the traffic on
>>> this list has settled down a lot in the last 24 hours and is
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> No, we don't need the comprehensive list to start.
>
OK, that's good. It will be worth gathering a group of experts to build a
comprehensive view. I suggest that include LibreOffice developers too.
> After all that, then we can go back to O
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile <
ariel.constenla.ha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Concerning the extensions, by reading the file Sam Ruby uploaded, the
> following
> extensions are in the grant:
>
>
>
Thanks, I'd missed those. Reassuring :-)
>
> I don't see the MySQL C
lding process.
There are makefiles, patches etc., but no source code worth mentioning,
in subdirectories stlport, openssl, hunspell, libxslt...
It might be all of these: http://hg.services.openoffice.org/binaries/
--
Vriendelijke groet,
Simon Brouwer.
| http://nl.openoffice.org
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
>
> It could be argued either way. I am sure if IBM put its efforts to
> LibreOffice then I'm sure it would be a great success. So why doesn't
> IBM want to take part when theres a great FOSS community already in
> existence?
>
I am pretty s
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
> I don't think the proposal here is for OOo to enter incubation and then try
> to copy everything that TDF/LO does. I assume the proposers have a vision
> for where they want to go, even though they may be starting from the same
> place.
>
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 6/5/11 7:49 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Richard S. Hall> >wrote:
>>
>> I don't think the proposal here is for OOo to enter incubation and then
>>> try
>&
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> There is a pending trademark application for OpenOffice by Tightrope
> Interactive so I am not sure that Apache OpenOffice would be acceptable
> unless the pending application is turned down.
>
Actually that trademark application is of deep con
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:06 AM, wrote:
> > I would recommend altering the proposal. "We have the set of files
> > specified in the software grant. During incubation, we will seek a
> > grant to the following groups of code: "
>
>
> Done.
>
Beat me to it :-) We still need to get that list fles
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana
wrote:
>
> The people who will only contribute to a copyleft license (and I know a few
> OO contributors like that) will not come over this world .. so to that
> extent this is a community fork and we cannot do brand sharing as that'll
> confuse
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:37 AM, wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 07:49:41 PM:
>
> > From: Simon Phipps
> > I'm not clear how safe that assumption is - that's what I have been
> waiting
> > to see explained for quite a while actually. Rob has
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:08 AM, wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 08:38:08 PM:
> >
> > >
> > > The people who will only contribute to a copyleft license (and I know
> a few
> > > OO contributors like that) will not come over this world .. so to tha
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:29 AM, wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 09:13:24 PM:
>
> > >
> > > I think it would be great for TDF have an end-user downstream
> deliverable.
> > > It would be great if anyone open source project wants to do that.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:24 AM, wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote on 06/05/2011 08:49:19 PM:
>
> => >
> > I read all that Rob. Nothing in there about the plan to continue
> creating,
> > building and delivering OpenOffice.org on all the platforms and in all
> the
&g
I still have no idea what you are talking about, not least since in this
place we are all individuals. But I would be quite interested to understand
why you have been trying so hard to stamp out all collaboration with the
LibreOffice part of the OOo community right from the start.
S.
On Jun 6, 2
Christian Lippka schreef:
> Am 06.06.2011 00:28, schrieb Simon Brouwer:
>> Op 5-6-2011 19:19, Christian Lippka schreef:
>>> Hi Ralph,
>>>
>>> Am 05.06.2011 18:46, schrieb Ralph Goers:
>>>> On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>&g
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:17 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:06 AM, wrote:
> >
> >>> I would recommend altering the proposal. "We have the set of files
> >>> specified
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Like most aspects of Apache, it's easier to ask for forgiveness
>
> than to seek permission, epecially when we don't all agree on
> the necessity of it ;-).
>
>
Given I had actually asked for and received permission from the proposal
mentor I
On Jun 6, 2011 2:58 PM, "Joe Schaefer" wrote:
>
> Because Apache will own the brand, we can make access to the brand
> contingent on things like non-abuse of our OOo forums, among other
> things.
>
> Carrots and sticks.
Is Apache historically flexible in this area? I had the impression the
tradem
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
>
> > Let's say we persuaded the good guys at Apache that this is a ploy to
> > manipulate them and they reject the code. Where then will it go? If
> > conspiracy is right it definitely won't be to TDF and it could be to
> > somewhere a lot mor
My apologies if this proposal is out of place on either list, but I think it's
worth thinking about early. Obviously I speak for neither Apache nor TDF but I
have a deep concern for OpenOffice.org and am very keen to see the community
healed.
Given that:
* both LibreOffice (October, Paris) an
On 6 Jun 2011, at 19:03, Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> My apologies if this proposal is out of place on either list, but I think
>> it's worth thinking about early. Obviously I speak for neither Apache nor
>> TDF but
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Danese Cooper wrote:
> However, it seems to me that October and November are still rather far
> off, and with the wealth of conferences over the next two months,
> perhaps we could set something up sooner than that? OSCON, anyone?
>
> I've just asked for a room at
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Danese Cooper wrote:
>
>> However, it seems to me that October and November are still rather far
>> off, and with the wealth of conferences over the next two months,
>> per
I asked some LibreOffice folk what they thought was missing from the list.
In addition to the stuff Christian listed (and the fact the list was not
derived from the latest beta), they said that there are a large number of
un-integrated work-in-progress patches in the form of CWSs that it would be
i
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 15:04, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > It's just a meeting between colleagues. If all it does is
> > break a little of the entrenched ice I'd call it a success.
> >
> > Sure beats email for dealing with emotions/trust.
>
> Right
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 8:49 PM, wrote:
>
> Simon Phipps wrote on 06/06/2011 03:18:11 PM:
>
> > From: Simon Phipps
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Date: 06/06/2011 03:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Summit Proposal
> >
> > On M
I've created a wiki page for us to co-ordinate who can attend what where. Do
please edit at will, there are no rules and I am sure I made lots of
mistakes :-)
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/OOoCommunitySummit
S.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote:
>
> > Hi Jim, all,
> >
> > 2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski :
> >>
> >> On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
>
> > Note that an expo-hall pass is free until (and including) today; it's
> > $25 thereafter.
> >
> > This also opens up the evening events Mon-Fri, which, if you're going
> > to f
users commited to use ODF
> just inside government is estimated in 3 million).
>
> Best,
>
> Jomar Silva
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands,
, Cor indicates that I nailed the matter quite squarely.
>
>--- Noel
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Simon Phipps
+1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
independent OpenOffice.org community member, is that
OpenOffice.org was, for most of its life, in excellent hands with
Sun/Oracle all things considered. Given that Oracle has decided to pull
away, I think handing it to an open source minded, vendor-neutral, mature,
capable organization suc
summary
dealt with file lists and did not take file size into account. So that 50%
in file count may represent a far bigger percentage of source code.
The real question is whether anything essential is missing that Oracle
can't supply and that is very difficult to replace.
--
Vriendelijke groet,
Simon Brouwer
-*- nl.openoffice.org -*- http://www.opentaal.org -*-
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Hi Thorsten,
Thorsten Behrens schreef:
> Simon Brouwer wrote:
>> The real question is whether anything essential is missing that Oracle
>> can't supply and that is very difficult to replace.
>>
> If you re-read Christian's mail, the answer to both is "yes&q
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device (so please excuse typos)
>
> On 7 Jun 2011, at 09:22, Dirk-Willem van Gulik
> wrote:
>
> > On 5 Jun 2011, at 23:45, Keith Curtis wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >> LibreOffice will for a long time be using a substantial amoun
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> On 07.06.2011 12:37, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>
>> Mathias Bauer wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think that this is really necessary *now*, as we can do that
>>> even better and more efficiently when we actually work on the code
>>> from the svn reposit
I just heard back from the Open World Forum Programme Committee (Paris,
October) and they would be pleased to provide us with space for a meeting.
S.
1 - 100 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
